The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Tobacco Smoking Should Be More Actively Discouraged by the National Government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
WOLF.J has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/10/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 107861
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)





Premise 1: Tobacco smoking is injurious to health
Premise 2: It is the duty of government to encourage the success of its citizens by multiple means.
Premise 3: Improving health is away of improving the probability of success
Premise 4: Discouraging injurious activity encourages health
RESOLVE: It is the duty of the government to discourage the use of tobacco, in order to help their citizens reach their goals.

There are lots of options to disagree - just please make an argument clear with what premise you disagree with. There are valid alternatives - and I'm not certain that I stand with this side in reality. All takers welcome!


I accept, I had to especially because I did my uni dissertation on the marketing aspects of smoking last year.

Anyhow, let's review your rather weak premises shall we...

Premise 1: Tobacco smoking is injurious to health-YES, smoking certainly has more cons than pros.

Premise 2:' It is the duty of government to encourage the success of its citizens by multiple means'.-NO, government's number one priority is to get you in to employment,so you contribute to taxes, not pamper us. If this was the case the health sector would not be so fvcked. In depth, to finance the health sector means budget cutbacks on other sectors, such as the military sector. AND we all know how much the western world loves a good old fashion war on terrorism.

Premise 3:' Improving health is a way of improving the probability of success'- This is a capitalistic world mate, ie survival of the (financially) fittest. Today, wealth and popularity trumps looking after other people.

'Premise 4: Discouraging injurious activity encourages health'- Ok but you do realise drugs such as tobacco and alcohol stimulate the economy.

'RESOLVE: It is the duty of the government to discourage the use of tobacco, in order to help their citizens reach their goals.'-IS IT THOUGH? IT'S NOT A RESOLUTION, IT'S AN UNATTAINABLE WISH MON FRERE.

Simply put government can't please everyone.Again esp. bc Tobacco trade stimulates our economies.

Allow me to make premises from the government's pov. (slightly exaggerated but it's true regardless).

P1- Tobacco kills, find ways to quit by yourself if you don't want to die, here have a leaflet about our local services and support groups.

P2-Sooo many of our people are killing themselves, but oh wait those bloody immigrants are stealing your jobs, lets focus on them instead!

P3-I wander if we can reduce women's pay again on a sly without people realising!

Here's an actual truth, more than half of all addicts simply don't have the resources and access to learn more about addiction. That's the stinger. So sure we can sit here n complain government don't care, but it's up to us Bro to
help raise this awareness.
Debate Round No. 1


Glad to see someone who can beat me in a debate.

Premise 1: ceded.
Premise 2: The government should not interfere with the health sector, as it is incapble of managing it effectively. The government should recognize that it lacks the ability to successfully manage national healthcare, and stay out of it: leaving it to the private sector and the "Cash for Care" ideology. The goernment should not additionally fund the health sector.
Premise 3: I am uncertain if you are disagreeing, as you have posted something about capitalism, and financials. Health aids in your employability - and therefore you income. A sickly worker in an inefficient worker.
Presmise 4: Money doesn't go unspent - even saving is delayed spending. While they are addicting, this is an unfortunately side effect, not a benefit to the economy. Citizens will find something more healthy to spend their money on - like chocolate, caffeine intake, or maybe put it towards some good use. Maybe the government could raise taxes to claim this much money from the average person - but that would come with other weaknesses, so it may not be a good plan.

Resolve: The goal of the resolve is merely to improve the status quo - and even if it is not 100% erasure of the tobacco industry. The money spent on cigarrettes alone could be spent on the following things:

The goal of the resolve is not to please everyone, but to benefit the country as a whole. Tobacco trade is a weak trade that takes agricultural effort that could be dedicated to another subject: corn for ethanol, wheat, soy products, a great variety of more useful substances.

I will respond to your premises: it is your right in debate and I'm glad to read.
P1: Apparently leaflets aren't working well enough. They have helped - but we can make a final push to help end mainsteream tobacco smoking in our youth.
P2: Focusing on immigrants (legal and illegal) is not going to solve the problem. Suicide is a precursor to a nation's destruction historically - we can't cover up that historical lesson.
P3: This has nothing to do with the debate - irrelevant if its true or not. I refuse to comment on such an irrelevant position.

The government has the best resources to enable us to spread resources and awareness about addictions and addiction help. Fiot would indicate that the government WILL take the action - irrelevant of any real life facts.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
Alright cool, every smart person like u n i would love to change the status quo, but unless you are highly influential, t wont happen g.
Posted by MasterofPun 2 years ago
Fiot is an important rule of debate: it means that the policy that the affirmative team proposes (Me, in this debate. It's the team that wants to take action to change the status quo.) Fiot is the part of debate that indicates the affirmative plan WILL come to pass (even if it could never in reality get through Congress, or judge, or something). It's just hypothetical - saying IF this could be passed, it WOULD be good. Was I clear? Or did I not help?
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
what is fiot?
Posted by MasterofPun 2 years ago
This is a real issue, and it appears that we will receive a real debate. There are good and bad aspects to any government action, particularly a restricting action.
Posted by hwp460 2 years ago
I feel this is a weak topic because it is just wanting to create propaganda.
Posted by hwp460 2 years ago
I feel this is a weak topic because it is just wanting to create propaganda.
Posted by Arclite 2 years ago
Well, prohibition worked the last time. And our government already does in a variety of manners. Perhaps edit the heading to reflect the idea that the government should do so in a more vocal and active manner.

- Arclite <3
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.